Jump to content

Talk:Muhammad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bmanzoor (talk | contribs) at 09:31, 22 April 2012 (→EDIT REQUEST ON 18/04/12 ---- Non-Arabic Sources (2.4)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Error: The code letter for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

Template:Pbneutral

Good articleMuhammad has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 7, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 8, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 30, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 5, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

RfC on image use

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images --Cybercobra (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

did not try to kill himself

There is a citing apparently from John Esposito's book that says he (pbuh) tried to commit suicide after receiving the first revelation - there is no proof nor corroboration of this claim. He is known to have received the revelation, felt physically ill and ran to his wife Khadijah (r.a.) and said 'cover me, cover me!' out of fear of what had happened to him. I suggest removing this lone sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottabeyou1 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Issue with this article

This article says on line 3 & 4 that "Most Muslims consider him to be the last prophet of God as taught by the Quran." It should be "All Muslims consider him to be the last prophet of God as taught by the Quran." It is mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wahab183615 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think all Muslims consider him to be the last prophet. The Ahmadiyya Muslims for example consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmed to be the last one, and there might be others as well. Eik Corell (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahmadiyya are considered Ahmadiyya Muslims according to Wikipedia. However, in the wider Muslim community, Ahmadiyya, and other groups that do no consider him at the last prophet are generally considered as non-Muslim. I guess from a point of neutrality it could be replaced with "Almost all". However, I'm not changing it. If Wahab183615 considers it a serious issue, he can raise a Wikipedia:Requests for comment Asifkhanj (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not all Muslims consider Muhammad to be the final Prophet. At least as far as I know. Ba'hai'ism comes to mind. redORANGEblack (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The blessed Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم said: There will arise 30 grand Liars (Dajjaleen) from my Ummah, each of them will claim that he is a Prophet whereas “I AM KHATAMAN NABIYEEN AND THERE IS NO PROPHET AFTER ME” [Sunnan Tirmidhi, Hadith No.2202]

QURANIC VERSE

"Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the apostle of Allah and the seal of the prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things." (Ahzab 33:40).

In this verse, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)has been described as the "Seal of the prophets" or the "Last of the prophets". This verse from the Holy Qur'an is the most clear-cut evidence for the belief of "Khatmun-Nubuwwat" (finality of prophethood). The well known scholar Hafiz Ibn-Katheer writes in his book: "This verse is a clear evidence for this belief that there is no prophet after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)." (Tafseer Ibn-Katheer)

It is thus incumbent upon Muslims to believe that Prophethood has ended with the advent of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). This belief in the finality of Prophethood has been an established belief of the Muslims since the time of the Prophet(pbuh). Every time a false prophet has arisen, the Muslims recognised him as false because belief in the finality of Prophethood has been established as part of the Muslim's fundamental beliefs. Without a shadow of doubt, the finality of Prophethood is something that is an essential belief in the religion of Islam. Hence the rejection of this belief is Kufr and any person who rejects this belief is out of the fold of Islam, no matter what claims he makes to the contrary. In the history of Islam there have been a number of false claimants of prophethood who were outrightly rejected by the Muslim Ummah as apostates and renegades.

The Prophet (pbuh) said:

(1) "Apostleship and prophethood have ceased. There will be no messenger or prophet after me." [Musnad-Ahmad]

(2) "My likeness among the prophets is as a man who, having built a house put the finishing touches on it and made it seemly, yet left one place without a brick. When anyone entered it and saw this, he would exclaim, 'How excellent it is, but for the place of this brick.' Now, I am the place of the brick: through me the line of prophets has been brought to completion."

[Sahih-al-Bukhari]

(3) "The Children of Israel used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number.”

[Sahih-al-Bukhari; 4.661]

(4) The Messenger of Allah set out for Tabuk appointing 'Ali as his deputy (in Medina). 'Ali said, "Do you want to leave me with the children and women?" The Prophet said, "Will you not be pleased that you will be to me like Haroon was to Moosa? But there will be no prophet after me." [Sahih-al-Bukhari; 5.700]

The amended Pakistani constitution (Article 260, clause 3) defines a "Muslim" as a person who believes in the oneness of God, in the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh), and does not believe in any person who claims to be a prophet after the prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

The Opinion of well-known Muslim Scholars on The Finality of Prophethood http://irshad.org/finality/opinion.php

Fatwas and court decisions against Qadianis (also known as Ahmadis) http://www.khatmenubuwwat.org/fatwaenglish.html http://www.khatmenubuwwat.org/govtdecision.html http://www.khatmenubuwwat.org/courtdecision.html

http://www.secondhandislam.co.uk/ http://www.secondhandislam.co.uk/resources/Interpretation%20of%20Finality%20Of%20Prophethood%20by%20Scholars%20Of%20the%20Past.pdf

http://www.albalagh.net/prophethood/finality%20of%20prophethood.shtml

http://www.islamawareness.net/Deviant/Qadiyani/qadiyanism2.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmanzoor (talk • contribs) 16:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Remove the image. Please dont forced to start a campaign against you.....??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.0.17.29 (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page header. Read the FAQ prominently listed at the top of this page for an exhaustive discussion of wiki policy. Thank you Span (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 7 April 2012

According to Muslims Prophet Muhammed should be referred to as the one who received the message of Islam/Quran from Allah(God) and began spreading the message of Islam as opposed to the FOUNDER of Islam as Islam is considered to have been created by Allah (or God) and not found by any human being, this is a fundamental belief in Islam and the notes are not sufficient to describe who he was. In addition It is not that most muslims but there are no Muslims that believe Muhammed was the founder, therefore it is fair to say "according to muslims " prior to who he was.

Thus instead of "Muhammad Ibn `Abd Allāh Ibn `Abd al-Muttalib (Arabic: محمد بن عبدالله بن عبد المطلب ‎) was the founder of the religion of Islam.[" it should be "Muhammad Ibn `Abd Allāh Ibn `Abd al-Muttalib (Arabic: محمد بن عبدالله بن عبد المطلب ‎)was according to Muslims the one who received the revelation of the Quran/religion of Islam from Allah (God) through the Angel Gabriel" ...


68.120.162.164 (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Read the intro carefully; it doesn't say what you claim it says. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 17 April 2012

Who sets the boundaries for censorship here. Could you please redirect me to the censorship criteria. Who decides what is offending to someone and not to others. Why is pornography 'censored' on wikipedia? How is a neutral point of view agreed upon when the persons deciding about an issue might not have any representation from the offended community?

O Wikipedia... you benefit too many but certainly have your own flaws... one just cannot give the authority of decision to the ones who do not have any representation from the people he has been given authority on ..

I know it would not change a bit.. but im just trying to prove my point which in the eyes of many here is not worth considering — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuskhan (talk • contribs) 05:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your complaint, I must simply answer that Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. We don't claim "authority"; our process for determining what material is included by consensus (not voting). The matter of images has been extensively and exhaustively discussed (as you can see from the FAQ prominently listed at the top of the page) for years, and consensus has always determined that the images will be kept. If you and the other "offended parties" would like to try and establish a consensus to remove the images, you are of course free to do so, but you will most likely be disappointed because that would conflict with Wikipedia's anti-censorship policy. We do not censor images just because people are likely to find them offensive (Islam and Mohammed are not singled out in this; it applies to everyone). Sleddog116 (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Brother, I request to delete the pictures which appears as keeping the black stone and getting revelation from angel and any photograph which shows the face of Prophet Muhammed because they are not true image and lead to future misunderstanding. Thank you. Ahamed.

Fakhru77 (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This request will have to be denied, sorry. We cannot censor material on this project. Tarc (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT REQUEST ON 18/04/12 ---- Non-Arabic Sources (2.4)

Please add the following after where Reference 41 ends.

Though history shows that some mighty prophets did indeed come with the sword as in the case of David vs Goliath (David (peace be upon him) did take part in battles and used the sword to kill his enemies i.e. enemies of God). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmanzoor (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done As presented, this is not an acceptable addition. "Though history shows" is debatable, as the historicity of religious texts is disputed, and to my knowledge, no direct historical records (i.e. non-religious sources) mention David and Goliath. Also, the edit includes the honorific (peace be upon him), which does not conform to a neutral point of view and has been discussed extensively (and described in the FAQ at the top of this page). Sleddog116 (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly add amended text as follows

Though on the other hand biblical accounts (i.e. Jewish and Christian traditions) show that some mighty prophets did indeed come with the sword as in the case of David vs Goliath (David killed him with his own sword and beheaded him) and he took part in battles and used the sword to kill his enemies i.e. enemies of God) - see Book of Samuel, 1 Samuel (17:1-58), Qur’an (2:251)

end of text

Some links to corroborate the aforementioned traditions http://gardenofpraise.com/bibl14s.htm http://bible.org/seriespage/david-and-goliath-1-samuel-171-58 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+17&version=NIV http://quran.com/2/251 http://www.haqislam.org/prophet-dawood-and-sulaiman/ some more links (taken from Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David

David and Goliath The Israelites, under King Saul, faced the Philistines in the Valley of Elah. He heard the Philistine giant Goliath challenge the Israelites to send their own champion to decide the outcome in single combat. David told Saul he was prepared to face Goliath and Saul allowed him to make the attempt. He was victorious, striking Goliath in the forehead with a stone from his sling. Goliath fell, and David killed him with his own sword and beheaded him; the Philistines fled in terror. Saul inquired about the name of the young champion, and David told him that he is the son of Jesse.[22] [22] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Samuel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmanzoor (talk • contribs) 09:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are never reliable sources, and scriptures (the Qu'ran, the Bible, etc.) are primary sources which can only be cited very sparingly literally and only for exactly what they say (i.e., they cannot be interpretted as you were doing in your suggested edit). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to click on the links I provided? Did you bother to read any text whatsoever?

So I can't quote from Bible and Qur'an now? I am just speechless at your response. It seems wikipedia has been taken over by those who are clearly biased against Muslims.

you say and I quote "Wikipedia articles are never reliable sources, and scriptures (the Qu'ran, the Bible, etc.) are primary sources which can only be cited very sparingly literally and only for exactly what they say (i.e., they cannot be interpretted as you were doing in your suggested edit)."

Only for exactly what they say i.e. they cannot be interpretted? Really? Have you never come across any interpretations of the texts of Bible (or for that matter any other book) on Wikipedia?

You want exact words?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Samuel%2017

48 As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him.

49 Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground.

50 So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him.

51 David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine’s sword and drew it from the sheath. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword.When the Philistines saw that their hero was dead, they turned and ran.

52 Then the men of Israel and Judah surged forward with a shout and pursued the Philistines to the entrance of Gath[f] and to the gates of Ekron. Their dead were strewn along the Shaaraim road to Gath and Ekron.

53 When the Israelites returned from chasing the Philistines, they plundered their camp.

54 David took the Philistine’s head and brought it to Jerusalem; he put the Philistine’s weapons in his own tent.


Now compare that to what I had written as was suggested to my first proposed edit (which I took without any issues as I could understand where the guy was coming from)

"Though on the other hand biblical accounts (i.e. Jewish and Christian traditions) show that some mighty prophets did indeed come with the sword as in the case of David vs Goliath (David killed him with his own sword and beheaded him) and he took part in battles and used the sword to kill his enemies i.e. enemies of God) - see Book of Samuel, 1 Samuel (17:1-58), Qur’an (2:251)"

So what is the difference? Don't those above two paragraphs imply the same thing? Or do you simply like the longer version better?

I don't even have to go far to prove how prejudice you are in your observation.

My suggested edit was in reply to this..

"The earliest documented Christian knowledge of Muhammad stems from Byzantine sources. They INDICATE that both Jews and Christians saw Muhammad as a "false prophet".

Indicate? Why I see no objection on not quoting directly from the Byzantine sources? So is it ok to say 'Byzantine sources indicate' yet 'Jewish and Christian traditions show' is incorrect? Perhaps I should have used the word INDICATE "instead" of "show"?

I could bring thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of examples where Bible (and other religious books) have been interpreted on Wikipedia itself. So why deny us something which is available to other faiths? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmanzoor (talk • contribs) 16:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this right now. This is a Wikipedia article discussion, as such it is important for Wikipedians to be civil, assume good faith, and not make personal attacks. Please consider carefully the probability that your fellow editors' edits represent their understanding of Wikipedia policy and are aimed at making the article more encyclopedic. Peter Deer (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I apologise. Now do you have any answers to my aforementioned questions? I accepted the first rejection as it made sense and I did not complain at all. But what would you make of the basis for the second one?> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmanzoor (talk • contribs) 16:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, religious texts are not relible sources of history.
Second, you appear to attempt to defend your religion's prophet by arguing that someone else too had a sword in a story. Wikipedia is not a place for original research or religious one-upmanship. 88.112.59.31 (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anon, cut it out with the personal attacks and the "your religion" stuff. Peter Deer (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See what I meant, Peter? So does that mean Wikipedia from now on won't take quotes from Bible? - as it needs a RELIABLE source of history before it will quote anything (please also define RELIABLE for my information) I wonder how come pages of Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, Torah, Bible, Islam, priests, bishops, reverends, imams and umpteen others are full of quotes and interpretations from religious books?

Would Wikipedia like me to go through its pages and provide some shining examples?

"The earliest documented Christian knowledge of Muhammad stems from Byzantine sources. They indicate that both Jews and Christians saw Muhammad as a "false prophet". In the Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati of 634, Muhammad is portrayed as being "deceiving[,] for do prophets come with sword and chariot?, [...] you will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed."[41]

Does Wikipedia consider the above paragraph neutral? It doesn't look neutral to me from any angle. It is an open attack on the personality and character of a person. You wouldn't find the above in a biography of someone. So why Can I not add something to it? The paragraph implies that Christians and Jews would consider any prophet to be without a sword and I am trying to rectify that from their own religious books that they have a prophet with a sword in their own history.

Does those who rejected my proposed edit even read the aforementioned paragraph? That paragraph talks from the point of view of Christians and Jews. So what did I do different? I brought something from the same point of view, did I not?

All I said was, I want to add some text. Just because it APPEARS to someone that it is an attempt for me to defend someone, it won't be accepted? Does Wikipedia even know what is going on here? Are these the kind of moderators/editors you have to make decisions for new users?

Why would you try your best to put off a new user? Isn't that how all the big companies treat their customers once they know they are too big and thus don't bother what their policies are? Has Wikipedia become too big to notice all this? Why do I have to go through this to post a few lines? It is nearly coming up to a week since I proposed my edit. Is this what I will have to go through every time I want to post something? Who decides between me and the other person? I am offended by his assumptions and accusations when all I am doing is adding a text on from the same sources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmanzoor (talk • contribs) 09:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&oldid=488625289"